Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-3 Civil STEVEN M. KOWALKOWSKI, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. FRED RECUPERO, DEFENDANT 05-0003 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BEFORE BAYLEY, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Bayley, J., March 24, 2005:-- Plaintiff, Steven M. Kowalkowski, filed a complaint against defendant, Fred Recupero. Plaintiff avers that he and defendant entered into a verbal contract for $932.90, for defendant to perform specialized machining work on cylinder heads of a 1968 Mustang. Plaintiff delivered the cylinder heads to defendant and paid him the $932.90. The oral agreement was amended to add the installation of hardened seats for $100 which plaintiff paid to defendant. Defendant undertook the work and damaged the cylinder heads. Plaintiff seeks damages from defendant in the amount of $2,058.78 "together with interest, costs of suit and reasonable counsel fees." Defendant filed a preliminary objection to plaintiff's complaint averring: Plaintiff's Complaint fails to conform to Law in that Plaintiff requests the award of reasonable counsel fees in a contract action, which is contrary to law. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully request that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed. (Emphasis added.) 05-0003 CIVIL TERM -2- 05-0003 CIVIL TERM There can be no recovery for attorney fees absent an express statutory authorization, a clear agreement by the parties, or some other established exception. Merlino v. Delaware County, 728 A.2d 949 (Pa. 1999). In Hudock v. Donegal Mutual Insurance Company, 438 Pa. 272 (1969), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania concluded that preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer are an inappropriate means by which to challenge the legality of damages sought in a complaint. A preliminary objection in the nature of the motion to strike off impertinent matter is the appropriate means through which to challenge an erroneous prayer for damages. In the case sub judice, defendant has not filed a preliminary objection to strike plaintiff's claim for attorney fees. Rather, his objection seeks to have the complaint dismissed (a demurrer). Accordingly, the following order is entered. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of March, 2005, the preliminary objection of defendant to plaintiff's complaint, IS DISMISSED. By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. Dennis J. Shatto, Esquire For Plaintiff Michael J. Pykosh, Esquire F or Defendant -3- 05-0003 CIVIL TERM :sal -4- STEVEN M. KOWALKOWSKI, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. FRED RECUPERO, DEFENDANT 05-0003 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BEFORE BAYLEY, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of March, 2005, the preliminary objection of defendant to plaintiff's complaint, IS DISMISSED. By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. Dennis J. Shatto, Esquire For Plaintiff Michael J. Pykosh, Esquire F or Defendant :sal